I have just heard from BT that the only exclusions from the principle that numbers beginning 01/02 are treated as "geographic rate" calls are:

· Indirect Access Numbers

· Numbers used by Internet Service Providers for dial-up internet access

Indirect Access Numbers are those where the caller may access another number that they select.

This does NOT include numbers which are simply subject to a set diversion to another number.

As they are specifically referring to 01/02 numbers, 'Indirect Access Numbers' cannot mean the likes of 0844/0871 'gateway' numbers typically used for cheap overseas dialling.

I think they refer to the geographical alternatives offered by 1899, 18185 and 18866 and intended for use by mobile callers using their inclusive minutes - but which, of course, can be similarly used from landlines.

I have not heard of anyone being charged for such use (possibly because, from a landline, use of the alterative freephone number works in the same way) but BT appears to be 'reserving the right' to charge differently.

BT does confuse matters by treating 0870 and 0845 in the same way as geographic numbers in some contexts. Looking at published statements, it may be that it is these which are addressed by an exclusion of Indirect Access Numbers from the terms of inclusive Call Plans.

In theory, there could be a reason to penalise BT callers who call 01/02/03 "dial-through to 0800" numbers, as BT is losing the benefit of the negative termination fee it would have received had the 0800 number been dialled directly. On the other hand, there is no reason why anyone would use this indirect means of calling a 0800 number from BT, unless (as I have proposed) the dial-through number was being operated for the benefit of a charity, rather than for commercial gain.

The important point is that BT declares calls to these numbers as being excluded from the terms of inclusive packages and those who call them are aware that they are calling a "special" number, which may fairly be understood to be used for "indirect access".

All is perhaps not quite as clear as it could be, however this is totally different from the particular case being addressed primarily by this thread.

I think this is a similar experience to one I have just encountered so instead of starting a new thread I'll add my comment here.

I have just called healthy Living Direct using the geographical number supplied by saynoto0870, and asking for the HL customer care as advised once I was connected. But before I was transferred an automated message said the call would be charged at 10p per min! Then I was put thorough to another dept and again I was told that the call would be charged at 10p per min. I was very surprised that an 0871 charge can be applied in this way when I called a geographical number. I shall read with interest any comments.

I think this is a similar experience to one I have just encountered so instead of starting a new thread I'll add my comment here.

I have just called healthy Living Direct using the geographical number supplied by saynoto0870, and asking for the HL customer care as advised once I was connected. But before I was transferred an automated message said the call would be charged at 10p per min! Then I was put thorough to another dept and again I was told that the call would be charged at 10p per min. I was very surprised that an 0871 charge can be applied in this way when I called a geographical number. I shall read with interest any comments.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

When you call the published 0871 it probably just delivers the call to the company's 01/02 number. So when the call answers (having dialled the 0871 number), what you hear is what you would have got had you called the 01/02 number.

In this case I haven't tried it, but I assume that the alternative is 01377 232330.

The likely reason for playing such a message on the 01/02 number is to advise callers of the cost having dialled via the 0871 number. The sheer fact that you got the message suggests that your call was dealt with in the same way as it would have been on the 0871 number, albeit that you will be charged as per a geographic call*.

* The discussion on this thread relates to one telephone call provider acting to charge calls to some 01/02 numbers at a premium. I assume that the message you refer to was played out by the receiver, so it has no bearing to affect the likelihood that you have been charged a premium by your telephone company.

I have just heard from Virgin Media that the investigation has been concluded and the issue has been resolved.

In my words, the story is as follows:

On adopting 0845 numbers, Tesco arranged for calls to the existing geographic numbers to be diverted. Unfortunately the way in which this was done led to an error in the Virgin Media billing system. Calls to the geographic numbers were being charged at "Operator Connected" rates and identified as being made to the 0845 numbers.

This fault has been corrected; there will be no further cases.

All of those who have been overcharged will shortly be provided with an appropriate adjustment to their account.

It is with some relief that we can reaffirm the principle that you pay for the call to the number that you dial.

I will be issuing a media release and notifying Ofcom. As the error has apparently been corrected and remedied, it may be of little concern.

The dismissive initial approach from billing enquiries personnel (which is now seen to have been mistaken) does however warrant some comment. Any grounds used for maintaining the charge were clearly ill founded.

Thanks are due to rfctabs, and others for having raised the issue. Without their efforts, Virgin Media would perhaps not have had the opportunity to identify this error and make the necessary corrections.

(I will be referring to this discussion thread as I draw public attention to this issue. Moderators and members may wish to take note.)

In my [SCV's] words, the story is as follows:On adopting 0845 numbers, Tesco arranged for calls to the existing geographic numbers to be diverted. Unfortunately the way in which this was done led to an error in the Virgin Media billing system.

So VM is claiming that, when VM delivers to C&W a call to 01 which C&W is doing clever things with, C&W can send some message to VM which spooks VM's billing system?On the face of it, this is incredible.I still hold to the theory that someone at VM must have done something wrong, either by extraordinary mistake, or for fun, or, just possibly, malevolently.As you so rightly say, a particularly heinous feature of the story is that initially, when told about it, VM staff just made up nonsense about it being Tesco's fault.

So VM is claiming that, when VM delivers to C&W a call to 01 which C&W is doing clever things with, C&W can send some message to VM which spooks VM's billing system?On the face of it, this is incredible.I still hold to the theory that someone at VM must have done something wrong, either by extraordinary mistake, or for fun, or, just possibly, malevolently.

The bottom line is that VM is responsible for the accuracy of its billing, so it must have done something wrong.

Whether or not other parties are in some way to blame and the precise nature of the failing within VM are not matters of any great concern to me. Issues of internal discipline and relationships with other companies are properly confidential - responsibility has to be carried at the corporate level.

Ofcom may decide to delve deeply into the reasons for the error - I have presented a number of reasons why it should look into the matter. Others are free to lobby Ofcom to conduct a thorough investigation.

I hope that VM will issue a statement if the issue is covered by the media, following a release that I will issue later today (I am awaiting comments from Tesco). Others are free to press VM for an explanation, and to challenge any statement that is made.

I understand that representatives of Virgin Media are following this thread. This is an open forum; they are free to comment here if they think it appropriate. (I would not myself press them to do so.)

In my words, the story is as follows:On adopting 0845 numbers, Tesco arranged for calls to the existing geographic numbers to be diverted. Unfortunately the way in which this was done led to an error in the Virgin Media billing system. Calls to the geographic numbers were being charged at "Operator Connected" rates and identified as being made to the 0845 numbers.

In what way do they mean?

From what I'm aware (from what I've been told), VM wouldn't know the final destination of the call (ie the leg of the call from the dialled 01x number to the 0845 number) as this is done by the TCP.

VM are aware that the call is being diverted as it's in the signalling flag of the call but only the TCP know the 0845 number it is being diverted to as Tesco themselves are billed for this side of the call.

The exception to this is, as mentioned in an earlier post, is if VM are the OCP and TCP.

VM are aware that the call is being diverted as it's in the signalling flag of the call but only the TCP know the 0845 number it is being diverted to as Tesco themselves are billed for this side of the call.

Do we actually know that these calls are being diverted, in the technical sense? Couldn't it just be that C&W has programmed some/most/all of its switches to answer calls to obsolete geographic store numbers specified by Tesco (and currently owned by C&W), and calls to the 0845 number(s?) advertised by Tesco, by playing the Tesco-specified menu, including options eg for an message about opening hours / talk to a human in a store / ... ?

You know what I think? It's simple, this was some engineer or systems-geek looking to go home early!

Well. ask yourself, could it be an active move on Virgin's part to over-bill. Certainly not. Why would it be... it would not be worth the corporate effort and PR disaster when it comes out.

I'm an ex-telephone engineer and although that was near 24 years ago, I rememer, I made some monumental c*ck-ups. We all did. I suspect not a lot has changed, largely becasue your 'actual' engineer at heart, hasn't. Engineers, like any other profession - we're a breed.

What do I mean by this? Call-logic. metering and switching was damned complex in my day, and it has to be far more intense now, and given the choice of an early tea-break or sweating and head-scratching over call-logic, switching or porting it right, I'll bet I know what happened.

A quick-fix was done, a few key presses on a porting desk, and "Tomorrow is another day", out the door...

And that Engineers "go-home-early" quick-fix works too, if you don't try to circumvent it, by dialing 01.

But real malevolence. Nope. Not ever.

More likely , Chelsea were playing at home.

Here's a mildly amusing foul-up from 1982: A young apprentice mis-soldered the MDF (a massive cable termianation block) such that 50 odd lines were linked together. Thus a call to any one of them, rang the lot. This caused chaos, until we found it.

Another time we did much the same thing, this time, quite deliberatly to two rival publicans that hated each other. Got the operators to voice a 'opeartor connected' call, one to other. Then initiated a call, going back the other way. And so that we were all privy to the furore, we hooked up the calls over the switch-room Tannoy.

We'd hook the unsuspecting, up to the weird and wonderful, the Tokyo speaking clock was a favourite.